Talk:Arthurs Seat, Victoria

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Arthurs Seat, Victoria is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Melbourne.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

I'm rather dissattisfied with this article as it stands. The only link to it is from the disambiguation page Arthur's Seat. Is there a category for Suburbs of Victoria? Having never been there, I don't know if this is a significant area or non-notable. Advice from an Australian apprieciated. Anyhow, I have added a stub message and listed on pages needing attention. At the very least making links to surrounding areas instead of just directions would be a good idea. SkArcher 20:41, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Arthurs vs Arthur's

I propose that this page be moved to "Arthurs Seat, Victoria" (without the apostrophe)

"An apostrophe should be deleted from place names written with a final `s’, or the possessive `s’ should not be included in the first instance. For example, Wilsons Promontory (not Wilson’s Promontory)."

-Ref: Geographic Place Names Act 1998 (Victoria) --Melburnian 07:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Split

At the moment the article seems to be about the town, the state park, and the hill. Perhaps we could move all the geological info, the chairlift dramas etc to Arthurs Seat State Park.

I disagree - the suburb article is not substantial enough to require splitting - that is why we have headings. Id note too that the redirect to which the above links was only created today. Orderinchaos 10:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Er, yes, I created it :) I agree there's not a huge amount of text, but having three distinct topics in one is a bit messy. It's awkward with categories having a single article be in a "state parks" category and in a "towns" category for instance - clearly a state park is not a town, and vice versa. But anyway it's not a pressing issue. Stevage 02:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The area is a popular local tourist site and deserves wiki coverage. Probably needs some more reference to the extensive gardens and walking trails. Against splitting. Titus Vespasian (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

No consensus for split. SilkTork *^YES! 00:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)